If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You will have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!

No, what you see is her wing thrashing about and slowing as she drowns. Sort of like the standard movie bathtub drowning you see limbs flailing and slowing until it stops. I think the angle is just a little strange, so it looks like she lost a part of her wing.

"Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum"
Translation: "Sometimes I get this urge to conquer large parts of Europe."

Originally Posted by Nerd-o-rama

Traab is yelling everything that I'm thinking already.

"If you don't get those cameras out of my face, I'm gonna go 8.6 on the Richter scale with gastric emissions that'll clear this room."

Re: Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!

Originally Posted by Marnath

Never show someone like Duv mercy. Killing them is the only moral choice. That's a sin Batman commits with alarming frequency too. How many people has he murdered because he keeps sending Joker to a place he knows won't hold him?

Strongly disagree. Anyone who wants to keep the "Good" label, and not be in the Punisher's category of barely-non-antisociality, DOES NOT deny a villain the option of choosing to reform, make restitution and eventually be redeemed by doing more good than they previously have done evil. Every person that the Joker kills is solely to be blamed only on the Joker and not ever on anyone else who could have theoretically killed them. After all, you could prevent all future murders by just killing everybody (which is precisely Judge Death's logic, IIRC). Past behavior is not indicative of future possibilities; anyone could wake up with a different alignment overnight, so you always should work to prevent crimes AS they happen, not randomly execute anyone that you think MIGHT commit a crime later, even if you think that because of a long history of previous crimes (nor is capital punishment ever anything but thinly-disguised vengeance). Heroism is NOT about expedient, "get it over with" solutions. It is about accepting the risk that things may go wrong, and assuming personal responsibility for stopping that wrongness AS it happens. The correct solution is not for Batman to kill the Joker, it is for him to turn Gotham's run-of-the-mill criminals over to Robin and Huntress and so forth, and spend the rest of his life watching Joker 24/7 like a hawk, and making sure his natural lifespan exceeds Joker's or that he finds a replacement to take over the vigil otherwise.

Re: Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!

Originally Posted by willpell

Strongly disagree. Anyone who wants to keep the "Good" label, and not be in the Punisher's category of barely-non-antisociality, DOES NOT deny a villain the option of choosing to reform, make restitution and eventually be redeemed by doing more good than they previously have done evil. Every person that the Joker kills is solely to be blamed only on the Joker and not ever on anyone else who could have theoretically killed them. After all, you could prevent all future murders by just killing everybody (which is precisely Judge Death's logic, IIRC). Past behavior is not indicative of future possibilities; anyone could wake up with a different alignment overnight, so you always should work to prevent crimes AS they happen, not randomly execute anyone that you think MIGHT commit a crime later, even if you think that because of a long history of previous crimes (nor is capital punishment ever anything but thinly-disguised vengeance). Heroism is NOT about expedient, "get it over with" solutions. It is about accepting the risk that things may go wrong, and assuming personal responsibility for stopping that wrongness AS it happens. The correct solution is not for Batman to kill the Joker, it is for him to turn Gotham's run-of-the-mill criminals over to Robin and Huntress and so forth, and spend the rest of his life watching Joker 24/7 like a hawk, and making sure his natural lifespan exceeds Joker's or that he finds a replacement to take over the vigil otherwise.

I call bull, while a single act isnt indicative of a pattern, when you have a psycho like the joker who repeatedly and consistently goes about murdering innocent people, you DO have a pattern, and yes, you do know that he will keep on doing it. Allowing him to continue going out and killing people in the vague hope that one day his psychosis will just magically heal and he becomes good is just as evil as committing the acts yourself, because you have it in your power to stop it, and you chose not to. When all other methods have been exhausted, there is no point in repeating the steps that clearly failed to work. Its expected to make him get arrested the first time. The second time its expected that you arrest him again and try to make his holding area more secure. But when you have had it repeatedly demonstrated that you cannot stop him from killing through nonlethal measures, its time to make a choice. Execute the guilty, or condemn untold innocents to death.

"Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum"
Translation: "Sometimes I get this urge to conquer large parts of Europe."

Originally Posted by Nerd-o-rama

Traab is yelling everything that I'm thinking already.

"If you don't get those cameras out of my face, I'm gonna go 8.6 on the Richter scale with gastric emissions that'll clear this room."

Re: Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!

I'd argue that one actually. Bruce dedicates his life to stopping crime, he has no actual reason for doing this, is not government elected, nor does he have any social contract to keep doing what he's doing.

He is no more responsible for Joker's murders than any other bystander in Gotham, the only difference is he's a bystander and chooses to go out and limit the damage Joker is capable of doing and so what he is willing or even able to do (since Bruce feels that if he starts killing he won't be able to stop himself) is entirely his own philanthropic activities in Gotham. As such, any action he does on his own volition in prevention of crime can be seen in a heroic light. Now would it be better for all involved if Batman killed the Joker? Yes. But if he's right about himself and he does go all Punisher afterwards is that within the realm of respectable vigilantism? Then we get into opinions on the death penalty itself, and so forth.

And I think I had a point here that I was building up to. Ugh, that's what happens when I type when I'm about to go to sleep. Maybe this'll come to me tomorrow.

Re: Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!

Originally Posted by willpell

Strongly disagree. Anyone who wants to keep the "Good" label, and not be in the Punisher's category of barely-non-antisociality, DOES NOT deny a villain the option of choosing to reform, make restitution and eventually be redeemed by doing more good than they previously have done evil. Every person that the Joker kills is solely to be blamed only on the Joker and not ever on anyone else who could have theoretically killed them. After all, you could prevent all future murders by just killing everybody (which is precisely Judge Death's logic, IIRC). Past behavior is not indicative of future possibilities; anyone could wake up with a different alignment overnight, so you always should work to prevent crimes AS they happen, not randomly execute anyone that you think MIGHT commit a crime later, even if you think that because of a long history of previous crimes (nor is capital punishment ever anything but thinly-disguised vengeance). Heroism is NOT about expedient, "get it over with" solutions. It is about accepting the risk that things may go wrong, and assuming personal responsibility for stopping that wrongness AS it happens. The correct solution is not for Batman to kill the Joker, it is for him to turn Gotham's run-of-the-mill criminals over to Robin and Huntress and so forth, and spend the rest of his life watching Joker 24/7 like a hawk, and making sure his natural lifespan exceeds Joker's or that he finds a replacement to take over the vigil otherwise.

Plus you whole "always give the villain a second chance" is so silly and non-sensical. The protagonists just slaughtered their way through a bunch of nameless guards (who, if you think about it, just have a day jobs to support the wife and kids), then you get to the top of the volcano lair and beat up the villain, and now for some reason you're supposed to spare them? The mastermind, the one who is genuinely evil, after killing all those guys who just happened to be working there.

Of course when you turn around, the spared villain reaches for the gun but then you kick him into a pit of lava and quip something pithy.

I guess that would make a great storyline for a 80s action movie, but I really hope goblins doesn't do something so cliched, inane, and morally senseless.

Re: Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!

Originally Posted by Dienekes

I'd argue that one actually. Bruce dedicates his life to stopping crime, he has no actual reason for doing this, is not government elected, nor does he have any social contract to keep doing what he's doing.

He is no more responsible for Joker's murders than any other bystander in Gotham, the only difference is he's a bystander and chooses to go out and limit the damage Joker is capable of doing and so what he is willing or even able to do (since Bruce feels that if he starts killing he won't be able to stop himself) is entirely his own philanthropic activities in Gotham. As such, any action he does on his own volition in prevention of crime can be seen in a heroic light. Now would it be better for all involved if Batman killed the Joker? Yes. But if he's right about himself and he does go all Punisher afterwards is that within the realm of respectable vigilantism? Then we get into opinions on the death penalty itself, and so forth.

And I think I had a point here that I was building up to. Ugh, that's what happens when I type when I'm about to go to sleep. Maybe this'll come to me tomorrow.

The Batman is neither judge nor jury, and there's no reason he should carry the burden of executioner. It makes less sense to me why the state doesn't execute him. I mean, the joker is like the worst terrorist in the world. You'd think they'd have an execution van all ready to go as soon as he was caught.

Re: Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!

Originally Posted by willpell

Strongly disagree. Anyone who wants to keep the "Good" label, and not be in the Punisher's category of barely-non-antisociality, DOES NOT deny a villain the option of choosing to reform, make restitution and eventually be redeemed by doing more good than they previously have done evil. *snip*

I never said it was the good thing to do, or the heroic thing. I said it's the moral thing. By my own reckoning.

Originally Posted by Marnath

*snip*
Then again, I'm True Neutral so what I believe doesn't really have bearing on a Chaotic Good like Fox.

She's taking a chance on Duv right now, that she'll come to her senses and play nice. I expect this decision to result in her death. It's not what I'd do. At least in theory, I wouldn't know for sure since I've never had to kill another person before. It seems like the best way.

Re: Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!

Originally Posted by Spuddles

The Batman is neither judge nor jury, and there's no reason he should carry the burden of executioner. It makes less sense to me why the state doesn't execute him. I mean, the joker is like the worst terrorist in the world. You'd think they'd have an execution van all ready to go as soon as he was caught.

That's what you get for leaving NO legal authority available for capital punishment.

Never remove the permanent solution entirely. Make it hard to "qualify," sure. I can stand as high a standard of evidence and clear threat to society as you want to build. But never take it completely off the table.

Re: Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!

Originally Posted by Marnath

I never said it was the good thing to do, or the heroic thing. I said it's the moral thing. By my own reckoning.

Drawing a distinction between "good" and "moral" is wickety at best, at least IMO. As I said before, making decisions on the basis of expediency rather than principle is Neutral at best. I'd even lean toward calling it Evil (though the E-word isn't an absolute condemnation in my book, it's more like "no better than a crook", with no caveat that crooks are not still people possessing rights). Not wanting to deal with the long hard road of righteousness, just wanting to dispose of someone today in case they'd be inconvenient for you tomorrow (for an admittedly very high degree of inconvenience which is fairly reasonable to define)...I don't call that moral, I call it coldly mechanistic efficiency, leaning in the direction of dystopian.

Originally Posted by Traab

I call bull, while a single act isnt indicative of a pattern, when you have a psycho like the joker who repeatedly and consistently goes about murdering innocent people, you DO have a pattern, and yes, you do know that he will keep on doing it.

You do not "know"; you assume. The Joker is sick in the head, and he probably won't just wake up well, but it's not impossible. I misspoke a bit earlier; you certainly have the right to assume he poses an immediate threat, but the correct response to knowing that Arkham can't hold him is to build a prison that's more secure than Arkham. Rehabilitating the Joker is an epic-level challenge, and the prison built to hold him should not be a level-appropriate challenge for him to overcome.

Allowing him to continue going out and killing people in the vague hope that one day his psychosis will just magically heal and he becomes good is just as evil as committing the acts yourself

Absolutely untrue. You do not have any responsibility over what another person does, nor any right to police that person's behavior, outside of a handful of social contexts which grant that right (and I'm inclined to argue even with those, but had better not as it starts to get into politics). Batman is certainly not a duly elected official, nor a family member, nor anyone else who can sensibly be called upon to answer for the Joker's actions (not even if the Joker claims that Batman made him, as he often does - what, we're listening to madman logic now?*). Batman has no more authority to kill the Joker than a mobster has to whack people who muscle in on his turf; the fact that Batman's "gang" is called Civilization and has the majority of the citizenry of Gotham in it does not mean it has an inherent right to punish disobedience with death, especially not without any means of due process, especially not with one man who acts on his own and answers to no one. By acting outside the law, Batman assumes an obligation to uphold a MORE restrictive standard of behavior than someone who is constrained by the legal system; if society has to jump through a lot of hoops before it can say "screw the rules, let's just kill this guy" and have some hope of other societies not condemning this as a war crime, then Batman has an even tougher gauntlet to go through before he grants himself the right to take a life. The fact that he forbids himself from doing so is a point in his favor to say the least.

* An ironic statement coming from me, I realize.

But when you have had it repeatedly demonstrated that you cannot stop him from killing through nonlethal measures, its time to make a choice. Execute the guilty, or condemn untold innocents to death.

Once again, YOU do not condemn anyone. The Joker does. He is not a disease, he is not a wild animal; he is a sentient human being and remains 100% responsible for his own actions at all times. Any measure which allows society to disregard his rights WILL inevitably become a tool in the hands of tyrants like Lex Luthor, and the risk of that sort of thing happening FAR outweighs the consequences of trying to keep Joker behind bars one more time. (And really, the persistent incapability of this to work is Rule of Drama in action, and by no means a realistic indictment of the feasibility of incarceration.)

According to my philosophy, no, it's still just a justification for murdering anyone you've decided you have the right to murder. It clearly isn't a 100% effective deterrent; the crime still happens, so your moral authority to keep using it is the odds that more murder would happen otherwise. And I don't believe that to be very true. I think an actually effective incarceration and rehabilitation system (not what we have, due to budget constraints, corruption, incompetence, and many other factors) is potentially a FAR better anti-crime measure than any amount of capital punishment could ever be. You just have to do it right, and ceasing to try because it's too difficult is not a reasonable course of action IMO.

Plus you whole "always give the villain a second chance" is so silly and non-sensical. The protagonists just slaughtered their way through a bunch of nameless guards (who, if you think about it, just have a day jobs to support the wife and kids)

At NO point did I say or imply that this was acceptible. The hero who I am holding to this standard uses nonlethal force at ALL times, not just against name villains. Indeed I would be faster to accept "kill the Joker" than I would "kill the Clown Gang's nameless mooks", though not by much.

I guess that would make a great storyline for a 80s action movie, but I really hope goblins doesn't do something so cliched, inane, and morally senseless.

That much is agreed. But we don't know that Duv is anywhere near as irredeemable as the Joker - though we also don't know that Saves is as much an idealist as Batman. Indeed, I had no idea she was this much of one; I fully expected her to kill Duv (or more likely die trying). The fact she hasn't done so has left me rooting for her, whereas previously I thought she was something of a jerk.**

**

Spoiler

Show

for having killed that fox just to prove she could, not knowing at the time it was an act of mercy.

Re: Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!

It appears we all believe that sparing Duv was a bad idea...

Originally Posted by Traab

The only thing I can think of is, saves believes that duv IS the chosen one, so she wont kill her if she can avoid it. Perhaps she thinks if she spares her, duv will fricking relax a bit and stop trying to enslave/murder any goblin that doesnt willingly choose to be her slave.

It can be, but Saves knows that Duv is out to kill her, and probably she won't change idea, given the speech about ferocity.

Last edited by Killer Angel; 2012-09-26 at 02:07 AM.

Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes. (W.Whitman)

Things that increase my self esteem:

Spoiler

Show

Originally Posted by Kaiyanwang

Great analysis KA. I second all things you said

Originally Posted by JoeYounger

Great analysis KA, I second everything you said here.

Originally Posted by Ryu_Bonkosi

If I have a player using Paladin in the future I will direct them to this. Good job.

Re: Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!

Oh, good. Gigantic off-topic morality debates! I do so love it when the multiple quotes start getting brought out, 'cause that means it's just getting started.

No, seriously, make a thread, but I don't think 5000-word "Should Batman kill Joker" posts are best put here. Pretty please? I don't want to dread opening the Goblins thread lest I have to wade through pages of arguments.

Re: Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!

Drawing a distinction between "good" and "moral" is wickety at best, at least IMO. As I said before, making decisions on the basis of expediency rather than principle is Neutral at best.

Of course it's neutral, I said so myself. "Moral" means different things depending on who you talk to, in the interest of not ruining the thread let's please not go into the specifics of that.

You do not "know"; you assume. The Joker is sick in the head, and he probably won't just wake up well, but it's not impossible.

Yeah it is impossible, mental illness doesn't just go away. It's a fundamental difference in the physiology of their brain.

Once again, YOU do not condemn anyone. The Joker does. He is not a disease, he is not a wild animal; he is a sentient human being and remains 100% responsible for his own actions at all times.

If that was true he'd go to prison instead of an asylum for the criminally insane. They send him to Arkham because he can't be saved, only contained.

That much is agreed. But we don't know that Duv is anywhere near as irredeemable as the Joker - though we also don't know that Saves is as much an idealist as Batman.

I'm willing to agree to this. Duv may very well turn out to be more redeemable than I expected, and if she does mend her ways I'll be the first to come on here and admit I was wrong about her. If she kills Fox, well, I'll just say "Called it."

Re: Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!

I don't think Fox would (or should) kill a defeated Duv either, but chopping off a piece of her [o]other[/i] wing and wearing it on her belt as a reminder that "There IS no destiny but what we make foe ourselves!" would be epic.

ChowGuy - The LaChoy Dragon - Servant of the Tiger and disciple of the WandererThe Hall of Wonders - HeavenGames Fantasy Role Playing and Creative Writing Forum.

Re: Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!

Originally Posted by Luzahn

But on that token, it's a bit difficult to put the Batman on trial. I mean, he's always going around doing illegal things.

Right. How many times has batman been framed for this or that. And the police never catch him. Because he's batman. So even when he's guilty, what are the police going to do? Not catch him. They just get hostile for a few months until the heat dies down.

Re: Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!

Originally Posted by Coidzor

And no one cared. Right?

Right?

It was actually used as a means for getting further support by the police to catch him. Mind you they were already attempting to do so anyway, but now they could pin for murder as well. It makes sense if you read the comic, they really wanted to capture Batman in that one.

Anyway, sbout Goblins. Saves is dumb. Biscuit is awesome. Chief is missed. Senior Vorpal Kickass'o is a hero. And when was the last time we saw the main group of goblins? It feels like it's been forever.

Re: Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!

Yeah, that one comic, "SENORRRRR VORPAL KICKASSOOOOOO!!!!!" Was freaking epic. I loved that wild dash straight for Kore, the sound of Chief in pain snapping him out of his mute broken mind and straight into action. I Really REALLY want to see how senor vorpal acts after they get a bit of breathing room. Will he sink back into immobility? Or will he be functional, but still heavily scarred mentally?

"Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum"
Translation: "Sometimes I get this urge to conquer large parts of Europe."

Originally Posted by Nerd-o-rama

Traab is yelling everything that I'm thinking already.

"If you don't get those cameras out of my face, I'm gonna go 8.6 on the Richter scale with gastric emissions that'll clear this room."